AM1212 Intro 2014 Group 2

Thursday, 27 March 2014

Write a post illustrating
and analysing the various digital identities available to Americans today. What
can this tell us about the meaning of identity for American in the future?

According to Philip J.
Windley, a digital identity ‘is the data that uniquely describes a person or a
thing and contains information about the subject’s relationships’. This suggest
that in theory any action by individuals during their use of the internet
constitutes the creation in some part of their digital identity. In this
context, the latest Pew report's assertion that over 87% of Americans use the
internet suggests that exactly the same number of people also possess a digital
identity, regardless of whether they are aware of this or not. However, when
discussing digital identity there’s a need to recognize that it can broadly be
broken down into two types 1) Online Identity/Social Media that a person
consciously and deliberately construct, and which may be true or false; and 2)
An identity that is constructed by corporations based on information they track
about individuals. In addition, there is also a need to recognize that one's
online identity consists of the following features: 1) A Public Identity i.e.
the things about yourself you are happy to let everyone know and 2) A Private
identity - things about yourself you choose to share with few or any other
people.

Any discussion of digital
identities needs to try to answer several questions: to what extent are such
identities representative of one’s identity in real life?; how much of a
creation are they of the individual?; and finally, what of the problem of identity
theft and the development of fake digital identities online? It is obviously
possible that a person's digital identity can be manipulated by others in a
variety of ways, ranging from something as simple as a photograph being posted
online without the individual's knowledge, to hackers accessing someone's
information and spreading it online. In addition, it can be said that the
creation of a digital identity is influenced by the interface individuals have
with websites such as Facebook; this has been studied by academics such as
Joanne Garde-Hansen. In light of this, it seems absurd that an article in
Forbes Magazine commented on how prospective employers have started to examine
Facebook profiles as a means to establish who someone is as a person. Clearly, digital
identities are inherently unstable and easily manipulated, so it makes no sense
whatsoever for employers to judge people based on such information.

What we can learn about the
development of digital identities from the study of the rise of digital natives
and digital immigrants written by Marc Prensky is that the meaning of identity
in America is most likely going to change drastically, with the majority
American population possessing both an physical identity and digital identity,
and that people will have a real struggle trying to reconcile these two into a
single identity.

The idea of having an identity that is
digital is a new, yet established concept that resonates within the majority of
people especially Americans; the internet represents traditional American
values and ideology through its expression of freedom, new territory and
pioneering. The internet is also highly dominated by Americans due to the fact
that Americans have created the majority of popular internet services such as
Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Match.com, Instragram, Pinterest, WhatsApp, Amazon,
Google, Craigslist, YouTube, Vine, Ebay, Netflix, Reddit, Skype, 4chan, iTunes,
LinkedIn, Wikipedia and Blogger itself, to name a few.

When one thinks of identity, they generally
think of the classic categories of origin, sexuality, gender, class and wealth.
This traditional form of identity is somewhat irrelevant since these factors do
not have to be transferred onto ones digital identity; in reality one might be
a twenty four year old, white, English man, however, online he could declare
his identity as a Mexican woman in her thirties. It is then that problems arise
with digital identities as risks being higher the more digitally involved one
becomes. Although the positive effects of the digital revolution are endless,
it cannot erase the critical problem that is knowing with whom one is reacting.
Though there are attributes associated to ones digital identity, these
attributes and identities can be changed, masked or dumped and new ones
created.

There is currently no means to precisely
determine the identity of a person in the digital world. Despite the many
authentication systems that aim to address these problems, there is still a
need for a verified identification system that we may never have. Although
there is this great risk of false identity over the Internet I find it must be
true that the pros exceed the cons and is therefore why people continue to use
the Internet despite its consequences; Michael Hagen, CEO of IDchecker, states
in a lecture entitled Digital Identity states
“For hundreds of years we augmented
ourselves, using glasses, hearing aids and artificial limbs to overcome our
biological limits. More fully integrating digital technology enables us to
truly transcend them. Instead of just our five senses, we will develop new
senses and develop new ways of interacting with reality, people and tools. This
will have an even larger impact on the way we live and work together.”

Wednesday, 26 March 2014

Technology in the last 10-20 years has almost completely taken over the world. The United States has remained at the forefront of technological advances, with brands such as Apple and Microsoft leading the way. Many use social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr to keep in touch with people, which others may use sites such as YouTube and Instagram for recreational use. More and more time is being spent online, with people creating personal and business accounts, meaning that more of our lives is being lived on the internet than ever before. The below graph shows which social networking sites are frequently used by US adults, and how much news they receive from using them.

Founded in 2004, Facebook has easily become one of the most used social media websites in the world. People use Facebook for many different reasons, ranging from keeping in touch with friends and family, to promoting and getting work for businesses. Within the US alone, 64% of Adults use Facebook, with 30% of those using it to get news and information. The below graph details a breakdown of what kinds of news people find out about on Facebook on a daily basis.

These online social networking sites allow the individual to portray themselves as they wish to be seen, as you can create a new online identity and persona for yourself which you can hide behind. However, this can be dangerous, as it allows for people to speak freely which although may seem a good idea, can lead to negative things such as cyber-bullying and racism. People often seem more outspoken and braver when they can hide behind the safety of a computer screen, as they are not in direct contact with the person they are attacking. This can make 'policing' the internet a difficult task, as most cases of online harassment may go unnoticed unless they are reported by the victim. The victim may however not feel comfortable reporting what has happened, or feel like it is such as issue because it's a fairly taboo subject which many aren't fully aware of. Nonetheless, cyberbulling is an issue which has arisen from the ability of anonymity online.

Having an online digital identity is a very American idea, as it connects to Crèvecœur's ideas of remaking yourself and becoming a new person. You can reinvent yourself again and again, through online gaming and forums, erasing the old version of yourself and starting anew. People who have had a tough time in the 'real world', for example have been bullied for their weight, can recreate themselves online in a way they would like to be seen, making them feel comfortable and better about themselves. However, this could lead to addiction, and a toxic way of living. With technology becoming increasingly mobile, users can take the internet with them wherever they go. In January 2014, 90% of Americans owned a mobile phone, and of that, 63% of users use their phones to go online. This means that people can quite literally take their digital identity everywhere they go, and can become addicted to checking and updating it on a frequent basis. Here is a breakdown of what US adults use their mobile phones to do, most of which involve using the internet and updating digital identities.

To conclude, with increasing technological advances, more and more time is being spent on the internet, whether it be for work or recreational use. The internet can be used anywhere the user desires thanks to the growing popularity of smartphones and tablets, however this can create a negative effect, as people become disconnected from each other and purely begin to live their lives online.

Today in America there are a number of digital identities available. These identities can be personal, such as Facebook; professional with a LinkedIn account; or form a community based on similar interests, such as forums.

A Pew survey in September 2013 revealed that 73% of Americans above the age of 29 use social networking sites. 71% of those adults use Facebook. This shows that the majority of Americans have a digital identity. Looking at the breakdown of the statistics, it can be seen that social networking defies the boundaries of gender, race and income, as the the percentage of users are similar across all those categories. For future generations this could mean that those aspects of a person's identity will no longer matter, which could lead to less sexism, racism and classism. For a digital identity, these things do not matter, because they are physical. If a person does not want to present themselves as male, black, and rich, they can present a different identity and others do not have to know that they are lying. Therefore, I think they will become less important as identifiers. The only identity that will matter will be whether someone is online. Unfortunately, this could have effect on America's poor. If the poverty-stricken cannot afford internet, then there is a danger that they will be ostracised from the rest of the American community as they will not be able to be a part of it.

The only category which does not show similar results is the age category. 90% of 18-29 year olds use social networking, but only 46% of those over the age of 65 do. This ties in with Prensky's ideas of there existing a divide between "digital immigrants" and "digital natives", the "natives" being the young generation who have grown up with the internet as a feature of their lives, and the "immigrants" people who have had to learn how to use it. Older people are less likely to have learnt, as it is akin to learning a new language, which can get more difficult as the brain ages. Presnky does worry that this will create an irreconcilable divide between the old and the young, as the older generation will not speak the "language" of the new generation. He sees this as something that will create a drastic change for the future of education in America. Prensky believes that the "digital natives" should be taught in a way that mirrors the working of the internet. For example, it should be recognised that they can concentrate whilst multitasking, that information should be delivered in a game-style format, and that graphics should be used more than text.

A concern among people who use social networking sites is that an identity they do not want might be created. Someone could post embarrassing pictures of them on Facebook, or hack their accounts and write offensive things under their name. Misuse of digital identity becomes more worrying when you consider that job searching and professional networking is starting to move online, through the use of sites such as LinkedIn. LinkedIn allows American to present a professional digital identity. A Lab42 survey found that 42% of LinkedIn users update their profile information regularly, and 37% update their profile picture regularly. This shows that whilst perhaps not as much of a feature as other sites in people's lives, a large number of Americans think it is important to keep their LinkedIn profiles up to date. As job hunting and networking increasingly becomes an online thing, as it might do in the future, identity theft should become a more serious issue. A digital identity depends more on trust than real-life identities do, because it is often the case that you will never meet the person you talk to online, so there is no way to verify whether what they tell you is the truth. Sites such as YouTube and Google are starting to recognise this need for verification and are asking for people to enter their full names in order to post a comment. However, there is as of yet no way to make sure that people are entering their real names.

Another reason for creating a digital identity is in order to form new communities based around shared interests or hobbies. Through the internet, people with similar interests can form a community without having to live close to one another. This aspect of the internet, as found by a Pew survey, is more important to Americans between 30-64 years olds, than it is to younger Americans. Younger Americans prefer to use the internet to keep in touch with friends they have already made. Therefore, the internet is useful for both creating new communities and strengthening established ones. Despite worry from "digital immigrants" that social networking might be breaking down the ability to form relationships, the Pew research found that in fact Facebook users are more likely to be trusting, form close relationships and revive old ones. This further suggests that "digital immigrants" do not understand the way "natives" function, which could cause problems in the future.

Over the last decade, Digital Identity has
become a more prominent way of defining Americans, as the influx and constant
adaptation of technology continues. The United States of America is the country
that is leading the way in this digital new age, with companies such as
Facebook, Youtube and Google all originating from there. However there is a
worry, especially from ‘Digital immigrants,’ that this reliance on technology
is unhealthy for the future generations of Americans.

You only have to look as far as the amount
of worldwide users there are on these networks: with Facebook attracting 1.23
billion people, iTunes 500 million and Twitter 243 million. Obviously this
includes other nations in its scope, however the USA is the largest contributor
of users to these sites, with more than 40% Americans using Facebook everyday.
As it is a fairly recent phenomenom, social media is a system that attracts
young people, therefore it is clear that the main users of social networking
are younger Americans, or ‘Digital Natives’ (those who have been brought up
with computers as an essential part of their lives), suggesting that the future
of America and American citizens will continue to be broadcast online. When you
consider that Facebook is a company that hasn’t even been active for a decade
(it was launched in 2005), the speed in which it has accelerated into an
essential part of day to day activity suggests that this will continue to
increase over the next few years.

For a country as vast and diverse as the
US, social media does help to establish a more unified identity. Over the past
few weeks of the course, we have studied the tensions between black and white,
male and female, rich poor; however, America’s presence online is not governed
by these identities. John Perry Barlow wrote in his 1996 Declaration of
Cyberspace Freedom that “we cannot obtain order by physical coercion,”
something that I believe to be true, as you are physically hidden on the
Internet and protected behind a screen. It is a great benefactor to the US that
someone in Maine can have an uninterrupted conversation with someone in Hawaii,
when this distance would previously have been a huge inconvenience. The freedom
and equality that is available to Americans online, seems to be the only place
where physical, gender or sexual identity is not important; they can in fact,
simply be one American talking to another.

The worry in this is that a reliance on
technology and the Internet can only go so far before the next generations of
Americans become addicted and overly dependent on it. The future of America
would appear to be driven by technology and there is a worry that the identity
of Americans will be determined by machine over mind. In an article in The Atlantic, observations of American
children concluded that they would rather be indoors staring at a screen,
whether it be a television, a phone, an iPad etc, rather than outdoors
socializing with other children. According to the article 90% of American
parents believe that some good can come from the usage of smart technology from
an early age and by 2010, two-thirds of American children had used a touch
screen device between the ages of 4 to 7.

Whilst there has been an emphasis on
learning on apps and websites, there is a risk that the next generation of
Americans will have grown up without sufficient interaction with other people
their age. Along with the ability to do educational course online and work from
home online, there is a possible prospect of a human being going through life
believing that they do not need to physically interact with other people when
they can get everything they need through a computer. This proposes a worrying
new American identity that has been named “the zombie effect,” where people can
essentially switch off from reality, and through the use of a screen, live
their lives online.

This is one of the more radical ideas of a
Digital identity, but one that is not inconceivable when you consider that
acceleration of modern technology and the dependence that this generation, and
the next, will have on it.

In an article entitled ‘9 Reasons Why Many Liberals
Absolutely Hate Obamacare’, Michael Snyder provides a pretty damning assessment
of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. He notes that whilst the preceding U.S.
healthcare system was undeniably ‘a complete and total mess’, Obamacare has
been a ‘colossal fiasco’ that cannot adequately be described by words such as ‘disaster’
and ‘catastrophe’; even terms as strong as these fail to capture the enormity
of the opportunity missed by the current U.S. administration. To support his
damning verdict, Snyder puts forward nine main reasons why Americans in general
and Liberals in particular hate Obamacare.

Several of these criticisms are levelled at the Obamacare
website (https://www.healthcare.gov/) that was supposed to
guide people into the system. Snyder claims that the website has been a ‘colossal
technical failure’, which has led to those trying to gain access to care
experiencing all sorts of problems. As just one example of the way it has proved
‘nearly impossible to sign up for health insurance policy,’ he highlights the
case of Janice Baker who, as reported by USA Today, had to wait seven hours to
enrol into Obamacare. He also notes that in several regions of the country the
website offers the option of purchasing insurance from only one company, and goes
on to repeat the claim made by the Washington Post that many people who
believed that they had successfully enrolled had in fact not done so at all. Snyder
also believes that many liberals are ‘absolutely mortified’ by the fact that it
cost over 93 million dollars to construct a website that has, so far, only
produced negative results.

Snyder is also critical of Obamacare for other
reasons: these include the fact that (1) It has caused insurance premiums to
skyrocket; (2) Employer-based insurance
cover is being reduced; (3) Obama broke the promise he made publicly that
people could keep their current insurance programs; and (4) The new system has
caused many doctors to lose their jobs because of government cuts to Medicare.

Snyder also argues that people find Obamacare
extremely complicated and suggests that this is not surprising given that the
document creating it is over 11 million words long. He concludes by stating
that while it seems as though Obamacare is here to stay, the manner of its
implementation proves that ‘our politicians in Washington D.C do not seem to
really care about us’.

Whilst these criticisms levelled at Obamacare
appear to be justified, it seems as though they can also be countered quite easily.
For example the arguments raised in relation to the website are flimsy, as it
could be easily be said any new website us likely to experience problems in its
early stages and that such problems are usually only temporary. After all, has
there ever been a case where a massive government website has not experienced
major problems leading to a media furore in the first year after its launch? With
regards to the increases in premiums, there is evidence to suggest otherwise (such
as the case of Julie Boonstra) and we have to remember that under Obamacare the
government subsidizes part of the costs for those earning up to a maximum of
400% of the Federal Poverty Level. It could also be argued that attributing the
blame for people having their insurance policies cancelled solely to Obamacare
is unfair, given that it is the insurance companies that are responsible for
carrying out the cancellations. Finally, it has to be said that Obamacare,
despite its problems and the delays in its implementation, has to an extent
achieved the aim of making healthcare available to many more people by
preventing healthcare companies from discriminating against those who have pre-existing
conditions etc.

However, it has to be admitted that Snyder’s
arguments do highlight a certain lack of foresight by the Obama administration,
since it clearly failed to realize the possible negative impacts that healthcare
reform would have on many people. We have to understand that people will
naturally be confused and worry if their insurance is suddenly cancelled and it
has not helped that the Obamacare website has failed on multiple occasions. To
a degree, then, the Obama administration should be held accountable on the
grounds that it should have been more prepared to deal with problems regardless
of whether they were expected or unexpected.

Despite its positives, it is of my opinion that Obamacare
cannot be seen as a permanent solution to the problem of healthcare in the
United States. For example, it is hard to argue against Michael Moore’s notion
that the ‘individual mandate’ that is the basis of the Obamacare, is simply a ‘pro-insurance-industry
plan’ that helps fill the coffers of the insurance companies. It has also
failed to tackle what is perhaps the most crucial problem of healthcare in the
United States, which is its astronomical cost. Unless spending in this area
isreduced, people will continually be
forced to pay high medical bills or go without medical treatment, which they
would not need to do if they lived in any other country in the Western
hemisphere.

To conclude, it is hard to sympathize with all of
the claims that Snyder makes, but he does have some justification for some of
what he says. From a personal perspective, I believe that healthcare should take
its place under the umbrella of Locke’s inalienable rights to ‘Life, Liberty
and Pursuit of Happiness’. Therefore I agree with Michael Moore’s view that
there is a need for a system along the lines of the ‘Medicare-for-all’ model,
in which the government institutionalizes healthcare as a public service and
makes it universal. Though many Americans will undoubtedly claim that such an
system is socialist and will endanger their constitutional values, they seem to
forget that they already have various state institutions in the form of fire
fighters and the police, whilst they only have to look over Atlantic Ocean to
witness that a public health service does not necessarily result in a socialist
country with no ‘freedom’.

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

I chose the anti-Obamacare advert entitled “Creepy
Uncle Sam”. The video was created by Generation Opportunity, a Koch
Foundation-funded anti-Obamacare group. Their aim with the $750,000 campaign is
to create adverts in order to convince college students to relinquish the
Affordable Care Act’s exchanges. According to Generation Opportunity, Evan
Feinberg, the adverts are promoting an “Opt Out” option, where young people
would “…have to pay a fine, but that’ going to be cheaper for you and better
for you”.

The advert depicts a young woman going to her OB/GYN
for an exam but has her doctor replaced by a ‘creepy’ oversized Uncle Sam, who
emerges between the woman’s legs as ominous circus music plays in the
background, ending with the tagline “Don’t let the government play doctor”.

Generation Opportunity’s strategy appears to have
unnerved the majority of its viewers, regardless of whether they are students
or if they believe in the cause. One argument for this video is that there are
of course some valid points for why the Obamacare system is flawed, but this
advertisement video is surely the wrong way to go about it; one viewer writes “I'm
speechless that this anti-Obamacare basically suggests the female patient gets
raped. This is beyond having a position against it... this is down right creepy.”

Overall, although the group Generation Opportunity is
entitled to their opinion and to express this opinion, they have not
productively nor effectively done so through this video. You could argue they have
disconcerted what supporters they did have and further turned people towards
being in favour of Obamacare as a result.